9/11 Conspiracy Theories

(1/5) > >>

bluegray (September 11, 2006, 11:10:41 AM):
A good summary of the conspiracy theories and why it is unlikely to be true:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
qrios (September 18, 2006, 13:43:59 PM):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6083135,00.html
Mefiante (January 17, 2007, 15:15:15 PM):
This page of movie downloads, which may be more accurately called A Tragedy of Errors: How Ragtag Barmies Join the Plots, is chockfull of 9/11 finger-pointing. If nothing else, many of the features on offer illustrate abundantly the lengths to which CTists are prepared to go in their endeavours to reconcile the geometry of a right paralleliped with that of a circular orifice sans the use of Occam's Razor. It is not, however, clear if the advanced hypotheses are put forward primarily because they are believed to be factual, or merely for the purpose of being provocatively controversial.

'Luthon64
(a.k.a. Bush-flunkey-lackey-stooge ::))
kennyg (February 09, 2007, 11:58:06 AM):
A good summary of the conspiracy theories and why it is unlikely to be true:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html



Well, I agree that many of the hypotheses that have been advanced about various aspects of the 9/11 events are quite unfounded, and are often based on looking a single piece of evidence in isolation.

However, the arguments over whether the Pentagon was struck by an aircraft or a cruise missile or whether the aircraft that hit the towers were real American Airlines Boeing 777s or military versions etc are quite irrelevant.

The real issues are:

Who was really responsible for planning the 9/11 events?
What was their motive for doing so?

The actions and words of the US Government, the President and the Vice President since then have been far from transparent, and the whole 9/11 Commission investigation was a whitewash from the outset because their brief did not allow them to investigate properly.

It's a pity that the rubble was removed and dumped and the steel sold to scrap metal dealers before a proper investigation was done. A thorough analysis of the cause of the failure of the only three steel-framed buildings in the entire history of Engineering that have ever completely failed and collapsed in a pile of rubble on account of fire was certainly warranted. Why wasn't it done?

The truth about who did 9/11 and why is being concealed, and until the truth is revealed, we ought to remain sceptical about the official account. There's a definite pattern to it. The incident occurs, an FBI or White House spokesperson (or the President) appears on TV and says, "Osama did it" and then no credible proof is produced and no-one is indicted in court and evidence is never produced in an open and transparent forum.

The assassination of JFK, MLK and even Abraham Lincoln were much the same, as was the Oklahoma City bombing. It's remarkable how these events all are blamed on the "lone nutter" who is found to have planned and executed the incident without any outside help. It's remarkable how quickly that lone nutter is identified. It's remarkable how little is offered in the way of proof.

In the case of 9/11, a strange (and as-yet not fully identified) group of men from the Islamic version of the Gideons (because they left copies of the Quran wherever they went) managed to outwit, outlast and outplay the intelligence community of the world's only Superpower, and, without any support or aid from any outside agency, pull off the most outrageous and daring terrorist stunt ever right under their noses. And that Superpower was powerless to react to that small group of "Islamic extremist nutters" because of bungling and incompetence on a massive scale involving multiple agencies and top generals and decision makers. Remarkable, isn't it?

In the case of Osama bin Laden, who was a CIA asset during the invasion of Afganistan by the USSR, is it not remarkable that the US military and intelligence community has been unable to apprehend him? Perhaps they don't want to find him because of what he might reveal?

Anyhow, the official version that Osama bin Laden planned it, Al Queda operatives executed it and all the lies about various people having taken flying lessons in the USA etc are the clumsiest, flimsiest and most laughable "Conspiracy Theory" that has ever been presented with a straight face by a bunch of Washington Suits in the history of mankind.

There's a lot of BS on the Internet about various details of the events of 9/11, but the Official Version is unconvincing and much is still unanswered. That Official Version deserves as much scepticism as anything that has been given the perjorative lable of "Conspiracy Theory" (note how often the words are capitalised by those denegrating them!).

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is so often thrown at alternative explanations for events that run counter to the "Official Version" that the process of ridiculing such alternative hypotheses itself begins to look like a conspiracy. It's meant as a term of ridicule, as if theory is sucked out of nowhere. Well, of course, the term should be "conspiracy hypothesis", but it's hard to say that with a sneer. The term "theory" is of course the foundation of Science and is reserved for well-established principles based on an open transparent process of verification, not for ideas sucked out of the ether.

Creationists use the same approach in dismissing Darwin's Theory of Evolution. They claim that we need not pay any attention to it because, "it's just a theory". So is Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, but I don't think that the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in 1945 stopped what they were doing to argue that point.

bluegray (February 09, 2007, 12:35:00 PM):
A thorough analysis of the cause of the failure of the only three steel-framed buildings in the entire history of Engineering that have ever completely failed and collapsed in a pile of rubble on account of fire was certainly warranted. Why wasn't it done?
Wasn't it done?

The term "Conspiracy Theory" is so often thrown at alternative explanations for events that run counter to the "Official Version" that the process of ridiculing such alternative hypotheses itself begins to look like a conspiracy. It's meant as a term of ridicule, as if theory is sucked out of nowhere. Well, of course, the term should be "conspiracy hypothesis", but it's hard to say that with a sneer. The term "theory" is of course the foundation of Science and is reserved for well-established principles based on an open transparent process of verification, not for ideas sucked out of the ether.
Hey, nothing wrong with a theory, but not all theories are equally probable. Usually 'conspiracy theories' are much less likely to be true than a 'scientific theory'. That is why it is ridiculed.

Creationists use the same approach in dismissing Darwin's Theory of Evolution. They claim that we need not pay any attention to it because, "it's just a theory".
And I can give the same reply to you that I give to them. What makes the theory probable, is the proof behind the theory. In the case of evolution it is supported by reliable evidence. But with most conspiracy theories there is little to no evidence. Only speculation, what ifs and "isn't it remarkable" ;)

PS. Welcome to the forum BTW ;D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page